Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
subscribe at prager-topia.com.
Hi everybody, welcome to the Dennis Prager Show.
This There are a couple of articles, interestingly, at the same time, on a question that is worth discussing.
And that is, David Brooks of the New York Times had a long piece in The Atlantic, and there was another one before that.
Also in the Atlantic, as it happens.
Which is on the left, but the subject is...
The thesis may be on the left, but the subject is not left or right.
And the subject is...
Are Americans becoming meaner?
Have you thought about that?
Does that strike you as a...
A phenomenon that's taking place?
For example, the number of people kicked off airplanes for rowdy behavior, for screaming, shouting, cursing, is much more than it was in the recent past.
Yeah, I think people are becoming meaner.
You think people are becoming meaner.
I think there are lots of reasons for that.
Yeah, well, that's the issue.
So there are two issues.
Are people becoming meaner?
And if so, what would the reasons be?
And I sense it too.
The ease with which I see people on the road flipping off other drivers, for example, especially younger people, though I think the phenomenon is more widespread.
You know, I've traveled as many of you know, I've been to 130 countries.
I've traveled abroad every year of my life since I was 18, except for 20...
What was it?
2021?
Or 2020?
2020. I even went to East Europe in 2021. It was not easy to travel on.
So, I had developed a certain sense, and it may be completely erroneous.
I don't claim that it's infallible.
But I did...
Develop a certain sense of the world's friendliest people.
And I've always included Americans on that list, and many Americans remain, of course, quite friendly.
But there's a sense of tension out there, and...
It's hard to put one's finger on it.
I'll tell you one thing that may be related and may not be because it was yet another article that I was reading and that is with regard to service by the airplane or airline industry that they're shifting as much as possible to Artificial intelligent chats, which I find, personally, I find useless.
Some airlines have abandoned human interaction completely, which is, by the way, another subject that I will cover.
I doubt many listeners know this, but...
The only example I remember in my life of being for government intervention as opposed to non-intervention with regard to business was the airline industry.
It was done, I believe, under Ronald Reagan.
And I did not believe...
Oh, was Jimmy Carter?
Yeah?
Oh.
Well, it shows that I wasn't partisan in my outlook.
But of course, you're a conservative supporter, and I totally understand why.
You don't want to regulate industry.
But I remember thinking, if the airlines start competing solely on price, then I don't know how...
The excellence of the airlines will not be diminished.
Do you ever see, for example, do you see, I don't watch TV, so are there airline ads on TV? Are you aware?
You know, Fly American, Fly Delta.
You don't watch TV either.
Zach, you live in front of the television.
Right, so are there airline ads?
Fly Delta, Fly American?
There are?
That's fascinating.
I wonder why, because in so many cases you have no choice.
Those of you listening in St. Paul and Minneapolis, twin cities, if you don't fly Delta, essentially you drive to a city that you can have some options for.
So the seats got crampier.
They no longer serve meals.
It's very, very hard to get somebody on first try if you call in to the airline.
And that's because everything is devoted to the bottom line.
Now, I don't lose perspective.
I know how lucky I am that I fly first class.
And my height, I have essentially no choice.
But I was on that...
What was it on?
Which airline?
Oh, JetBlue, yes.
I flew JetBlue from Fort Lauderdale to L.A. Saturday night.
And the room in the first row, which has always had a lot of room, was the bulkhead in first class.
A little more than the somewhat roomier seats in coach.
And the flight attendant was very open.
She said, oh yeah, they reconfigured the plane.
So there's just less room in the seats.
This was first class.
Because you make more money if you sell more seats.
It's obvious.
So, back to the issue of the...
Of the meanness and the many articles about it.
The question is why, if it is happening, and if it is, that's a very, very bad sign in America.
How America got mean is the article.
And it begins here.
In a culture devoid of moral education, generations are growing up in a morally inarticulate, self-referential world.
So his theory is they're not taught to be an ethical human being.
Well, ethical is not the same as nice.
It could be not nice and ethical.
So he calls it morally or inarticulate self-referential world.
Over the past eight years or so, I've been obsessed with two questions.
The first is, why have Americans become so sad?
The rising rates of depression have been well-publicized as have the rising deaths of despair from drugs, alcohol, and suicide.
aside, but other statistics are similarly troubling.
The percentage of people who say they don't have close friends has increased fourfold since 1990.
The share of Americans ages 25 to 54 who weren't married or living with a romantic partner went up to 38% in 2019 from 29% in 1990, a record high 25% of 40-year-old Americans have never been married. a record high 25% of 40-year-old Americans have never been So one out of four Americans...
40 years old, have never been married.
I've reported on that.
These are data that I have given you over the course of the past year.
The percentage of high school students who report, quote, persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness shot up from 26% in 2009 to 44% in 2021. Do you remember in high school having persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness?
No, no, no, the usual teenage angst, of course.
But this is persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness.
Yeah, I don't think we were atypical in that way.
My second question is, why have Americans become so mean?
I was recently talking to a restaurant owner.
That's exactly whom to talk to.
Restaurant owners.
He's right.
Back in a moment.
Natural disasters.
Airline cancellations and runway near-misses, supply chain issues, inflation, rising interest rates, and sky-high government debt.
This is Dennis Prager for Amfed Coin& Bullion.
There's a lot in the news about what consumers cannot control, so let's talk about what you can control.
You can control how you choose to invest and protect your wealth.
That's why I choose to do business with Nick Grovich and his company, Amfed Coin& Bullion.
Now is a great time to own tangible assets like gold, silver, and platinum.
With over 41 years' experience and tens of thousands of satisfied clients, Nick will help you make informed decisions and show you smart choices, which have been proven winners time and time again.
Amphetcoin and Bullion?
The question of Americans getting meaner, as one will return to, I am...
I have an important book and author now.
The book came out yesterday.
It's always exciting.
Liz Wheeler may be well known to you, may not be, but she should be known to you.
She's a political commentator and podcaster.
The Liz Wheeler Show.
The book is Hide Your Children.
Talk about Americans getting angrier.
That's one reason.
Who can they trust with their children?
Not school.
That's clear.
Exposing the Marxists behind the attack on America's kids.
Well, that must have been a fun book to write, Liz.
Dennis, thanks so much for having me on your show.
You know, I say that the book has such an intense topic.
It has such a visceral reaction for so many parents that that's why I named it Hide Your Children because the title was inspired by that viral YouTube video of Antoine Dodson saying, hide your kids, hide your wife.
And I figured with such an intense topic as this, I should add a moment of levity to it because I wrote this.
For all the parents in the country who felt the same way that I did during COVID when we recognized, maybe for the first time, that our children are under this deliberate and relentless assault.
And I wondered, where is this coming from and why now?
Why such escalation?
Who is behind this and what is their goal?
So I sought to find these answers and what I found is...
It actually isn't a new effort to attack our children.
It's been decades and decades in the making via the left capturing many of our institutions like the media, the education system, religious institutions, some of them sadly.
But it's escalating now in a way we've never seen it before.
So what I do in the book is I name the names of the people behind this attack on our kids.
And then because we're in this cultural insanity right now, it means that something the Republican Party has been doing for the past 50 years isn't working.
Because we're not winning this culture war.
So I propose a solution that is different than what the Republican Party is offering for how we can finally compete in this fight, take back our institutions, and protect our kids.
Wow.
Name the names.
Are you willing to do that on air right now?
Give us some examples.
Good.
Go ahead.
I would love to.
So one of the names you may be familiar with, because ironically, she's been in the news the last week or two.
The president of the American Library Association is a very influential woman by the name of Emily Drabinski.
Now, Emily Drabinski was elected to this position last year.
And the president of the American Library Association has a lot of power over what books are placed in libraries across the country.
And after she won this election last year, she sent out a tweet that said, who would have thought that a lesbian Marxist could ever be elected as president of the American Library Association?
Admitting her own political ideology, admitting that she's a communist, which is shocking enough as it is because this woman is an outspoken proponent of the sexually graphic books and the books that push critical race theory on our children being in our children's libraries.
But, Dennis, what's more interesting is the reason that she won this seat as the president of the American Library Association is because Randy Weingarten, through her weight, Randy Weingarten being the president of the second largest teachers' union in the country, threw her political weight behind Emily Drabinski and ushered her into victory.
By the way, does Randy Weingarten say about herself that she's a lesbian Marxist?
She has not said it as clearly as Emily Drabinski has, but that's what Marxists do, right?
They oftentimes try to hide who they are.
They lie about their ideology.
And Randy Weingarten has also been incredibly influential in placing social-emotional learning into children's classrooms across the country, which sounds pretty innocuous.
Nothing like a parent would look at that phrase, social-emotional learning, and see a red flag.
But what's packaged inside social-emotional learning, it's not a topic like math or science.
It's disguised as values education, teaching children how to discern right from wrong.
And that's actually what it is.
It teaches children a worldview, but the worldview it teaches is a Marxist worldview.
It teaches children to place other people either into the category of oppressor or the category of oppressed.
So if you're the head of a teacher's union and you're a huge proponent of placing social-emotional learning in children's schools and social-emotional learning teaches children a Marxist worldview, I think it's pretty safe for us to infer that she is also a Marxist.
Yeah.
All right.
All right, back in a moment of obviously an important book, Liz Wheeler, the author, Hide Your Children, the Marxist behind the attack on America's kids.
When the government used emergency edicts during COVID to restrict the gathering and worship of churches, three pastors faced the risk of imprisonment, unlimited fines, and their own churches being ripped apart.
But they took a courageous stand and reopened their doors in the face of a world that chose to comply.
The Essential Church is a feature-length documentary that explores the struggle between the church and government throughout history.
The story uncovers those who have sacrificed their lives throughout history for what they believe in.
Rediscover why the church is essential and how we can prove that this stand remains true from a scientific, legal, and most importantly, biblical.
This is not your typical movie.
You should see the movie with your friends and family.
The Essential Church is streaming today exclusively at SalemNow.com.
That's Essential Church.
SalemNow.com.
Streaming at SalemNow.com.
In great clouds, or white walls, or blue skies, we're going to fly, feel all right.
Somebody help me feel all right tonight.
Dennis Prager with Liz Wheeler.
Commentator and podcaster.
Her book is up at DennisPrager.com.
How sad.
It's really sad.
Hide Your Children.
Exposing the Marxists Behind the Attack on America's Kids.
So you gave the example of the head of the American Library Association.
Weingarten is the head of the National Federation of Teachers of the National Education Association.
Which one is it?
Oh, the American Federation of Teachers.
American Federation of Teachers.
Give me more names.
Yeah, so one of the things that parents have become most familiar with in the past couple years is critical race theory.
They didn't recognize it as the Marxist critical theory that it is, but they did recognize when their children were being told, if you're white, you're automatically a racist.
If you're black, then you are automatically oppressed.
They recognized that, and they said, well, that's bad.
We don't want our kids being taught that.
What parents didn't realize immediately is that critical race theory is the grandchild of critical theory, which is a piece of Marxist work or a piece of Marxist philosophy directly from the Frankfurt School.
It was written by a Marxist named Max Horkheimer.
It made its way...
Here to the United States.
And we saw it in schools.
But what's really interesting, Dennis, is a lot of people know this now.
This has become somewhat of common knowledge.
But what they don't recognize is that it's not a coincidence that the transgender ideology emerged on the heels of critical race theory, that it came first critical race theory and almost immediately after.
The transgender ideology.
And the reason that that happened is because critical race theory, when you tell white children that they're racist and there's nothing they can do to redeem themselves because this is just based on skin color and not based on their character, it creates an identity crisis in these children.
They feel bad.
They feel evil.
They begin to feel self-loathing.
Sometimes they even begin to feel animosity towards their parents because their parents made them this way, made them white.
And you have this identity crisis.
It begins to fester in these young children.
And then in swoops, the transgender ideology, which, like critical race theory, the transgender ideology is the outgrowth of a neo-Marxist theory called queer theory.
Queer theory was written, or the founding document was written by a woman by the name of Gail Rubin.
She's alive and well in our country today.
And queer theory seeks to provide...
A poisonous antidote, I know that's a contradiction, to critical race theory by saying to these children, listen, you can throw off this evil white identity that your parents gave you, and you can dismiss being an oppressor if you put on the mantle of a marginalized identity.
Maybe that of a transgender person or a non-binary person or an LGBTQIA plus person.
And what happens when children are first hit with critical race theory and then hit with queer theory is they end up being radically alienated from their parents, which is destructive to the family unit.
And they also end up being secured as at least activists for radical leftist causes, if not...
Outright revolutionaries for Marxist theories.
And we're obviously seeing this.
Parents have become more familiar with it.
But we're seeing this in schools, one right after the other, like a one-two punch.
And the goal is, of course, the goal of all Marxists, the destruction of the family unit, in order to then cause upheaval in society to overthrow capitalism.
That's excellent.
That's excellent, to see a relationship between critical race theory and the transgender explosion among kids.
So I want to review this for the listener.
So you are, in the case of the critical race theory, you are irredeemable if you are white, but you're not irredeemable In terms of your sex.
That you can change.
And they do it often.
And by the way, when you spoke, I asked myself, I don't have the data, but I follow this avidly.
It seems that the transgender phenomenon among kids is overwhelmingly white.
I don't see black and Hispanic girls saying they're boys.
Not at the same extent.
I'm sorry?
Not at the same extent.
No, exactly.
Not at the same extent as white children, and it's also divided by socioeconomic class.
So you see these upper middle class white children being targeted because they're the ones that are told that the only reason that they're successful or the only reason they have what they have is because their families have built their fortunes on the back of white supremacist institutions, that they have white privilege.
Right.
So this is very interesting.
So I'm a white girl and I'm built-in racist.
And I can become acceptable if I do something to change me.
And the only change that's really available is not ideological.
It is human.
I will become a boy.
And then I have overthrown the patriarchy and I have overthrown the heteronormativity and the cisgender biases of my society.
And then I will be accepted.
Did I get you right?
Yes, that's correct.
And the children view this as they will be socially accepted.
But those who are pulling the strings here, the Marxists behind this indoctrination, understand that it's not...
It has nothing to do with whether the children will be accepted.
It has to do with the children being alienated from their parents, throwing off their identity as a child or as a white person, feeling self-loathing, and then embracing a Marxist ideology.
The outcome of this is children's bodies are mutilated.
And their minds are captured by the radical left.
And make no mistake, this is not a random assortment of nonsense that's happened to come together in the name of tolerance and inclusion.
It's a deliberate plot by Marxists.
Dennis, I read the founding document of Queer Theory.
And it is the most disturbing thing I've ever read.
I had to put it down and walk away from it because this woman who wrote this founding document was not only advocating for the sexualization of children, which is evil, she was defending child pornography and defending outright pedophiles, saying that in 20 years our society is going to regret imprisoning men who, quote, love underage youth.
It's the most horrendous thing you've ever heard.
The book is Hide Your Children, Exposing the Marxists Behind the Attack on America's Kids.
Liz Wheeler.
We will continue.
This is really an important book.
I salute Liz Wheeler.
Where do people find the Liz Wheeler Show?
You can go to rumble.com slash Liz Wheeler.
We love that platform because it is the only platform that doesn't censor us.
You can also find the book at hideyourchildrenbook.com.
I really appreciate everybody who's been buying it so far.
I'm eager to hear people's feedback because I know the solution that I offer here is a little different than what the Republican Party offers.
So let me know what you think.
Yeah, good.
What is your solution?
Well, my solution is to recognize, especially in the public school system, that...
The reason the public school system was created in our country, and it wasn't compulsory until 1852, which isn't that long ago, the reason it became compulsory in Massachusetts, first of all, was because there was an influx of immigrants coming to our country at the time.
Particularly Catholic immigrants.
And the Protestant politicians in charge wanted these immigrant children to be indoctrinated in American values so that they'd be loyal first to America versus the country of their birth.
And secondly, indoctrinated with Protestant values because of the age-old battle between Protestants and Catholics.
And I realized when I was reading about this that our education system actually is supposed to be an indoctrination center.
Indoctrination itself is actually a kind of nebulous morally Neutral concept.
It's what's being indoctrinated that determines whether it's good or bad.
That's exactly what I said when I spoke at Bombs for Liberty and PragerU.
I've been attacked in every major medium for that comment.
I said, we bring doctrines.
Who doesn't?
When you teach tolerance, are you not indoctrinating?
You are, of course.
Indoctrination is morally neutral.
Right, exactly.
It's morally neutral.
I salute you.
Anyway, so what is your recommendation?
My recommendation is that we take back these institutions and use them to indoctrinate in things that are good and right and beautiful that are objectively true, because they're going to be controlled, these institutions, either by Democrat ideologies or by Republican beliefs and values.
It's up to us to decide which we want to do.
If we continue to play this neutral game, we're just going to lose.
That's clear.
I have been telling people...
At least certainly in urban centers to take their children out of school and homeschool them.
Would you rather they keep them in school and fight on board seats?
No, Dennis, I have a very basic view on this.
I actually think we should probably, we're this close to getting to the point where we should get rid of the public school system altogether.
That's right, that's right.
If you can possibly homeschool your child.
Apparently, apparently so.
You're terrific.
You've caused me, you've forced me to read your book.
No, no, absolutely.
I'm going to do it very soon.
Hi to your children.
Liz Wheeler, good luck.
You've done the country a service.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate that.
Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life.
He didn't stop at the pillow.
Mike also created the Giza Dream bed sheets.
These sheets look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep, which is crucial for overall health.
Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
It's ultra soft and breathable, but extremely durable.
Mike's latest deal is the sale of the year for a limited time.
You'll receive 50% off the Giza Dream sheets, marking prices down as low as $29.
Go to MyPillow.com, click on the Radio Podcasts square, and use the promo code Prager.
There you'll find not only this amazing offer, But also deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the MyPillow 2.0 mattress topper, MyPillow kitchen towel sets, and so much more.
Call 800-761-6302 or go to MyPillow.com and use the promo code Prager.
Hi everybody, it's the Male Female Hour, second hour every Wednesday of the Dennis Prager Show.
I don't know how many years it is, it's at least 15, maybe 20. I think it's the most honest talk about men and women in the American media for many reasons.
One of which, I don't shy away from any topic.
Number two, I'm neither a man fan nor a woman fan.
I'm a good person fan.
And it seems that God in His infinite wisdom has made as many jerks of either sex.
There's truly no monopoly.
The only difference is that they express it somewhat differently when they're obnoxious.
But there are wonderful people of both sexes too, just for the record.
Truly wonderful.
So I have an intense topic for today.
I'd like you to react to my theory so you can start calling in very...
Quickly or very early in the hour.
And that is, I believe that there is a, something exists that is a greater threat to a marriage than even an affair, an extramarital affair.
and that is taking your spouse for granted.
Or, if you will, in the same direction of thought, but slightly more extreme is contempt, having contempt for your spouse.
So I'm going to ask my producer, is there a difference, or is there a serious difference between taking someone for granted and having contempt for them?
Yes, there's a huge difference.
There is a huge difference.
Oh, yeah, we may not agree on that.
I think taking your spouse for granted, I think it's a continuum.
It's hard for me to imagine that if you take your spouse for granted for enough time, it won't lead to some degree of contempt.
But nevertheless, contempt clearly is the greatest danger to a marriage, greater than an extramarital affair.
I.e.
adultery and greater than just taking them for granted.
But that's, as it were, obvious.
So I'm trying to make a point that it may not be as obvious.
And that is that just taking your spouse for granted is an almost...
It's a guarantor of a miserable marriage, and whether it's a guarantor of divorce is dependent upon how much you're willing to endure a miserable marriage.
It's worth noting that taking anyone in your life for granted is the kiss of death.
Anything good in your life for granted.
That is a...
That is truly part of human nature that must be fought.
To be continually grateful for someone or something in your life.
Because if not, it's the kiss of death.
To whatever it is.
You can take your health for granted, as an example, and not keep working on your health.
See, whatever you take, there are two downsides to taking something or someone for granted.
One is that you therefore have no gratitude for having it or that person.
And the other is you won't nurture it.
They're related, obviously.
If you take your health for granted, you're not going to work on your health.
So both are critical because gratitude is the mother of happiness and the mother of goodness.
If you're grateful that you have your husband or your wife, That is really big.
And it's something that most people have to work on.
Just as you have to work on anything.
Are you grateful for your house?
There's an endless number of things that people start taking for granted.
In effect, I could have done this subject on the happiness hour because I'm so big on gratitude and the antidote to gratitude or the toxin that destroys it is taking something or someone for granted.
The odds are you didn't take your spouse for granted in the beginning of the marriage.
You might have even felt lucky that you have this person.
Do you still feel lucky you have this person?
That's a good question, isn't it?
Do you still feel lucky you have this person as a spouse?
That's a good one.
I meet many, many, many, many couples, especially Well, not especially.
I meet them largely at speeches.
And before most speeches, I have what we call a VIP reception, where I mingle with people and mostly take photos with them.
And on many occasions, not all, I will be immediately charmed by the husband or the wife.
And it's equal.
It's not one sex more than the other.
And I will say to the spouse, which is pretty forward of me to do so, you are one lucky man.
You are one lucky woman.
And the reaction is fascinating to me.
So, for example, I will say...
To a man, you are one lucky man.
And he will say, you know, something in effect, boy do I know it.
And then she might chime in, and it's happened often enough for it to have made an impression on me.
She might chime in and say, well, not luckier than I am.
And then I think they probably have a pretty good marriage.
that she chimed in, that she volunteered, that she felt lucky to have him as a husband, was a big deal.
1-8 Prager, 776-877-243-7776.
Do you agree that taking the person for granted, no longer feeling I'm lucky to have this person as my spouse, is more dangerous to a marriage than an affair?
1-8 Prager, 776-877-243-7776.
Or even without comparing it to an affair, do you have experience in either direction where that sense of I'm lucky.
Has died.
Which is another way of saying taking the person for granted.
Were you taken for granted?
Did you take your spouse for granted?
I wonder how this, by the way, I wonder how this phrase for granted got established.
Because granted does...
Oh, for granted.
Now I understand.
Like, you had it coming to you, so you're not appreciative of it.
That's it.
Now I get it.
For granted.
As if you are granted it.
1-8 Prager 776. So it's male-female hour, and I'm going to take your calls.
Taking your spouse for granted, I think, is more dangerous, ultimately, in many cases, than an affair.
Affair is obviously painful, could be devastating.
Depends on its duration, its intensity.
Was it purely physical?
Emotional as well.
Affair, was it a one-night stand?
Was it an affair?
I mean, there are so many variations on that theme.
But it's a big issue, and sometimes it just kills a marriage, although I don't think it should automatically kill a marriage.
But over the course of time, taking someone for granted, and if it breeds contempt for...
Then it's the death knell.
I live on earth and I understand that to a certain extent taking for granted is part of life.
Although I think one should cultivate gratitude and a sense of I'm lucky as much as possible.
I don't take my health for granted.
I have no reason to assume I'll be sick tomorrow, but that's true for everybody who gets sick tomorrow.
They didn't assume it the day before.
So, in the sense, I think that it's analogous.
You shouldn't take your health for granted.
You shouldn't take your spouse for granted.
Okay, let's see here.
Let's see what you have to say.
Orlando, Florida, and Kara, hello.
Hi, Dennis.
I am 10 and a half years older than my husband.
He's 35. I'm 45 and a half.
And even though there's that age gap, I definitely believe that the man is the leader of the home, but at the same time, I have no problem leading with the appreciation.
Adornment of my husband.
And it's mutual.
Somebody has to be the leader in that regard.
And when I pay good attention and honor him in that regard, he reciprocates tenfold over.
You know, men provide, they hunt, right?
They're natural hunters and gatherers.
And women, we're natural nurturers.
So we have to appreciate our spouses.
And as women, there's no problem being the leader in that because the men do appreciate it.
That's why we have a successful marriage.
And he shows it back to me even greater than I show it to him.
Well, that's a beautiful statement.
How long are you married?
We got married when my husband was 19. So it was a little scandalous.
You're saying it was scandalous?
Well, I was...
Yeah, no, I understand.
Yeah, you were 30. Yeah, I was over 30. He lied about his age to me.
There was no reason to believe he wasn't a man for a very long time.
Wait, wait, that's a great story.
Wait, wait.
Did you know his real age when you married?
When we married, I did.
When we first met and started dating, I did not.
What did he say he was?
How old did he say he was?
He said he was 28 and as a woman of 30 and a half.
I believed it wholeheartedly.
You believed it because you wanted to believe it?
No, I believed it because he acted like a man.
Oh, okay.
That's fair.
He acted like a man.
That is hilarious.
So at what point did he tell you he's 19?
I finally confronted him.
Several months into dating because my instinct told me he was lying and I was convinced and my girlfriends were convinced that he had a wife and kids because just what else could it be, right?
So we came up with this whole imagination as women do apparently sometimes of this scenario and he texted me an article about him graduating school early, becoming an entrepreneur at a young age and becoming successful and my jaw just hit the floor.
Oh my god.
How long did you date?
At that point, it was for several months when I found out and I had to make a decision.
And I made it pretty quickly that I was going to stay.
And he said he wouldn't have let me leave anyway, so it was mutual.
That's sweet.
I take it you're both Christian?
We are.
We are.
Yeah, because the reason, for those listening, the reason I... It's a beautiful thing to have a man the head of your household.
I'm a very strong woman.
I probably have more...
I have more masculinity in me these days than most men, and I still have no problem with my husband leading my household.
I think that's the way it should be.
And it brings a natural balance to your family and your children.
You should write a book on that.
Thank you.
Let's do it.
Okay.
You write the foreword.
All right.
That's a deal.
Okay.
1-8 Prager 776. There is a joy in speaking to you.
The amount I have learned from callers is not measurable.
Okay, Prescott.
I was just there.
Prescott, Arizona.
Cindy.
Hi.
That's funny.
Hi, Dennis.
I am so grateful for you.
I think I'm still married for 37 years because of you, because of finding you.
That's a beautiful thing to say.
Thank you.
Of course.
So my husband was unfaithful early in our marriage, and the thing that's gotten me, when I take him for granted or think about things I don't have with him versus what I do have, we get in trouble.
I say we get in trouble, we just aren't very close.
And it's not fair to him.
Everybody makes mistakes and isn't perfect.
He is the head of the household.
He's a retired policeman.
I have a lot of respect for him.
But yes, I think that not being grateful and taken for granted, it is pretty much worse than...
All right, yes.
All right, well, good.
I want you to stay on.
You lived through that.
We'll be back in a moment.
Male Female Hour, Dennis Prager Show, every Wednesday, second hour.
I think that taking your spouse for granted is often more dangerous than an affair to the continuation of the marriage.
Affairs are problematic, to say the least.
I just want to make that clear.
And some truly mean the end.
But we'll talk about that.
Another time.
I'm talking about taking your spouse for granted now.
So back to Cindy in Prescott, Arizona.
Okay, Cindy, go ahead.
Well, I think that we tend to think that we are better than or give more than the other person or we look at ourselves a little nicer, I think, than we do the other person.
When I realized in my life that I make mistakes, and I had learned that sin basically is all viewed equally by God.
I'm not sure if that's true, but that's kind of what I learned at a church.
And when I learned that, that my sin is no worse or better than his, then I saw him in a different light.
I struggle with, you know, marriage is hard, but every time I'm reminded to...
Look at how amazing he is and how lucky I am.
It completely changes me.
When you do that, what is it you think?
How do you induce gratitude for having him in yourself?
How does that get created, you mean?
I think about the alternative to not being with him as being alone.
I look around at other people's lives, but often it'll be a show like yours or reading one of your books, seriously, that will remind me of it, and I get lucky enough to be reminded to look at what I have.
And usually I write it down, and I try to just really connect with it, and it's a good thing.
Well, thank you on every level for your call, for your attribution of my work having been helpful.
That means a lot to me.
Okay, Lydia in Chicago, hello.
Hi, how are you today?
Good, thank you.
My experience was completely the opposite of Cindy's.
I was never able to forgive because it was a continual bad behavior that was...
In general, just highly, highly negative, affected me financially and emotionally, and I ended up divorcing him.
Yeah, and I would not argue against that.
Oh, you know what?
I need to go.
Okay, all right.
No, I don't.
Okay, go ahead.
Okay.
I think that's what she meant.
I hope someone said I need to go.
Maybe I need to go from the marriage.
Look, Neither in my life nor in my ideology do I believe that divorce is always wrong.
In fact, I believe that sometimes not divorcing is wrong.
Some of you, theologically, do not accept that.
I respect that completely.
I'm not speaking theologically.
I'm just speaking morally.
With, I believe, common sense, the notion that no matter how you're treated, you should stay in a marriage, I don't think brings glory to God, and I don't think dignifies the human condition.
That's why I'm not a fan of unconditional love.
No matter how you treat me, I will love you.
Even God doesn't say that.
So, I've talked about that on a number of occasions, and it's always worth bringing up, but it's another subject.
I do believe that you can be maltreated enough to warrant a divorce.
I don't see...
It's almost like any mistake in life...
It's forgivable except the mistake of the wrong spouse for those opposed to any divorce.
That's the one mistake you must live with permanently.
We'll be back.
Hello, my friends.
Dennis Prager here.
I have said this on a number of occasions.
Today or this hour will verify it once again.
I don't know whether America will survive the left-wing attack on its foundations and its governing values.
But I will say that no one will ever be able to say That there wasn't a fight waged intellectually.
The number of excellent articles, books, speeches in our time defending the founding principles of the country of liberty, in particular smaller government, which is the only way to protect liberty, it's amazing that people don't understand that.
It is not possible to have both liberty and big government at the same time.
It's like saying, oh, I want to be free, I want to be an independent person in my marriage, and I want an extremely controlling spouse.
I'm not sure that they go together.
So why would you want a controlling state?
So there's a new book out.
And I have the author in.
It's rare that an author is in the studio because either they're on a tour or they actually live in the area.
And the latter is really rare.
I don't know why.
We have a lot of people in California, but I don't know how many authors live here.
The Origins of Woke.
Can't get more precise than that.
You would have thought that that title would already have been taken up.
Yeah.
Yeah, you would have.
Yeah, but it's an ambitious book, so I don't know if everyone wants to sort of take that project down.
No, that's exactly correct.
It is ambitious.
The author is Richard Hanania, H-A-N-A-N-I-A. Now, it says here, you're a research fellow at the University of Texas, president and founder of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, and that you were at the...
Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia.
Those were all previous affiliations.
University of Texas just ended.
Columbia.
Right, now you're on your own.
I get it.
You have a PhD in political science from UCLA. So you went to a woke university.
Several of them, yeah.
I went to University of Colorado for the undergrad.
I went to University of Chicago Law School, which actually was probably the least woke university I've been around, especially the law school, especially 10 years ago.
I don't know what it's been like since.
Yes, and especially University of Chicago.
Exactly.
They have the statement on free speech.
Yeah, and they were clear about that in orientation.
They told us this is different from other places.
It was a great experience.
Went to UCLA, and we didn't have it.
Any of that free speech stuff.
It was all about DEI. DEI. Already then.
Then that's 10 years ago.
They might have used different words.
Yeah, but it was the same thing.
It was the same.
Exactly.
By the way, forgive me one moment if I may call you Richard.
Tonight, for those of you listening, I want you to know I will be speaking at Arizona State University.
And it should be a fascinating evening given the opposition of professors to my speaking there.
So Charlie Kirk and I will be speaking.
If you have a third cousin's nephew friend at ASU, in other words, any human being in your life, have them go, pay them if necessary, so that they will actually hear ideas that they never hear from their regular studies.
Were you always aware of the intellectual...
Weakness and moral weakness of wokeness, or did you come to this later?
No, I think I was always sort of aware it was crazy.
I mean, it starts with, you know, gender differences.
You know, the first few times I heard, I mean, I have friends who grew up sort of of, you know, upper class background.
Maybe they got this stuff in junior high or high school, so it wasn't so shocking to them.
But when I got to college, you know, I found out that, you know, there's an anthropology class.
They tell you men and women are indistinguishable.
I think when I heard that, you know, it sort of discredited everything else.
You're like a younger version of me.
No, no, it's eerie to hear.
Hear this.
Yeah.
So you must understand that how when you said there was just a different wording but the same thing.
So I'm a generation before you.
I was at Columbia in the 70s and I was told men and women are basically the same.
There were two things that said to me, I'm not a leftist.
They didn't hate communism.
And if you don't hate evil, you're null in my book.
And the other...
Was that they told me men and women are basically the same.
And it was so obvious.
So this is the question that my listeners know I ask almost everybody.
How do you explain you?
So in other words, 10,000 students at UCLA. That was your undergrad, right?
University of Colorado.
Oh, Colorado.
UCLA grad, okay.
So 10,000 students at either of them.
Here, men and women are basically the same.
And Richard Hanania goes, what are you, crazy?
How do you explain that?
Yeah, I don't know.
It might be inherent.
I mean, there might be just people who are, you know, less conformist.
I don't know.
I know.
It may not be answerable.
Yeah, yeah.
I don't know why I so immediately knew this was drivel.
Yeah, I mean, one of the things I studied in grad school was political psychology, because this is one of the things that fascinated me.
And I go into political psychology, and all they're studying is, why are conservatives so racist, right?
So there are a bunch of people who are also themselves looking at the rest of the world saying, why are these people called conservatives?
And I was like, okay, I'm not going to get the answer here, but maybe I'll have some tools to think about the question.
I'm telling you, you are verifying this.
This realization of mine, it is not always possible to explain the outlier.
Maybe it is not explainable, but that is the case, where at a very early age you know nonsense.
Yeah, and I think some people know nonsense, but they keep it to themselves.
They really don't see the point of pushing back.
Did you feel alone at school?
Yeah, I did.
Ideologically, I would speak up in class.
And especially, I remember the specific anthropology class.
It was called cultural anthropology, right?
They're studying primitive cultures.
I know a little bit about data.
And the evidence they would use to show men and women were the same.
It was just like, we treat men and women differently.
Therefore, we treated them differently.
And now they act different.
That's right.
That's it.
That's it.
That's all they had.
Everything is a social construct.
Yeah, exactly.
And I raise my hand and I ask the professor, like, that's also consistent with men and women just being different and us, therefore, treating them different.
And he actually says, for the purposes of this class, we're going to assume that all differences are true.
By the way, you said something and it triggered in me another example.
There was a book, I think it was a pretty famous book, Already published when I was a student.
I think it was The Authoritarian Personality, I think it was called.
And the entire book was about the right wing.
Oh, that's still political.
Yeah, they still talk about that book.
There's no authoritarian personality on the left.
Communism slaughtered more people than everything except Nazism and numbers.
It dwarfs Nazism.
But the only example of the authoritarian personality is a fascist.
A right-wing fascist.
Yeah, yeah.
This is political psychology.
I mean, this is what they do now.
They basically do these studies.
And of course, you can show that conservatives sometimes believe in misinformation.
Of course, you can show sometimes they're prejudiced, but it's completely one-sided.
There's been some people in political psychology who've pushed back against this, especially the authoritarian personality.
That kind of research has been pushed back on, and people have shown.
Actually, just change the questions a little bit.
You can find a left-wing authoritarianism.
But generally, you're right, and especially the media, the way they do it.
We talk about this stuff.
It's clearly from the perspective of we liberals have figured it out.
These conservatives have something wrong with them.
Well, so you've taken on a very tough task.
The origins of woke is much harder than examples of woke.
Oh, yeah.
We got plenty of examples, sure.
Right.
So what prompted you to write this?
Did you wake up one day and realize, I got it, I understand it?
Well, I went to law school before I went to graduate school for political science.
By the way, why did you go to law school?
You haven't practiced law.
Yeah, that's right.
I was sort of just wayward.
As an undergrad, I was reading books on my own, doing my own thing.
I graduated, and law school is the one thing you can do without having any other skills or accomplishments.
No offense to anyone who goes to law school.
No, it's a riot.
The number of people who go to law school because they don't know what else they want to do with them.
probably at least half.
Yeah, from experience.
In other words, everybody in medical school wants to be a doctor.
Yeah.
Right?
But 50% of people in law school don't want to be lawyers.
It...
Exactly.
Well, it's because of the test, right?
You have to know something about biology to take the MCAT, right?
For the LSAT, it's basically the SAT. I mean, it's basically just a standardized test.
So anyone can get into a good law school if they have good grades and a good score.
So that was really my only option.
But I was studying a little bit.
All right, hold on, because I want to restate the book.
The Origins of Woke by Richard Hanania.
It's up at DennisPrager.com.
And we will continue in a moment.
Okay, my guest wrote The Origins of Woke today.
When did it come out?
September 19th, so just a little over a week ago.
You excited?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
It's a new experience.
It's a great thing.
Oh, it's your first book?
It's my second book, but my first book was an academic book, so I didn't go on a book tour.
Yeah, I understand.
What was the first book?
It was about American foreign policy.
It was arguing against the idea that there's a coherent grand strategy.
It's a very sort of technical international relations theory kind of book.
Definitely not for a mass audience.
Who published that one?
Rutledge.
Oh, what did it cost?
$206?
Something like that, yeah.
I sold a good amount because I had a little bit of prominence on the time, but yeah, it was too expensive for most people.
What does Rutledge think when they charge these prices?
They are trying to gouge university libraries for most academics.
The only people who buy them are university libraries, so they set them for like $500 to try to get as much money as possible.
As soon as you said it, I realized that.
And who's published this one?
This one's HarperCollins.
Oh.
So yeah, for a little bit broader audience.
Yes, indeed.
Yes, I have a lot of books, a number of books with them.
I'm glad for you.
This is important.
The origins of woke.
Okay, so let's get into exactly that.
Do you have a chronological era?
Yeah, it was really the seven or eight years after the Civil Rights Act that were really key.
So the Civil Rights Act passes in 1964. It does things that everyone now agrees are good things, right?
Gets rid of Jim Crow.
Gets rid of intentional discrimination.
This was the intent, right?
No blacks or Jews or anything like that, right?
This was the intention.
Within seven years, the Supreme Court rules that Disparate impact is a form of discrimination.
So you give a test or you have a policy.
If one group does better than the other...
All right.
So I, for better and worse, I acknowledge my ignorance when I hear something I didn't know.
And this I should have known.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of disparate impact?
Yes.
And the EEOC, when it took the case, their internal documents show...
What year was that?
This was 71. The case was Griggs v.
Duke Power Company.
Oh, are you familiar with that?
I feel truly, I mean, that is so important, and I can't believe I didn't know it, but I didn't know it.
Yeah, that's what the book is for, exactly.
Well, that's why you're on.
That's why I learned so much from having people like you on.
So, what was the case?
Tell me the case.
It was basically this factory in, I think it was North Carolina.
They had previously discriminated based on race before the Civil Rights Act.
They wanted to start using an intelligence test, basically, for promotion and hiring.
The EEOC, in their internal documents, I actually encourage the plaintiffs in this case not to appeal because they thought they would lose at the Supreme Court.
They thought the statutory history was so clear.
I mean, there was members of Congress saying they consider disparate impact.
They thought that that was not what they were doing.
So the EEOC thought they would lose the case.
They go to the Supreme Court in the 60s and 70s.
The court has just gone crazy, right?
This is the era of Warren and Berger courts.
And they actually fine for EEOC and the plaintiffs.
I would say that if you have a practice that has a disparate impact, the burden becomes on the employer to show that it's necessary.
This is just one of the main arguments of the book, but people think this equity stuff from Ibram Kendi is 5 or 10 years old.
No.
Since 1971, every corporation in America has had to live under something like Kendi-style equity.
It's just becoming sort of clearer now.
But the idea of the book is a lot of this stuff has just been in the law.
For half a century or more.
What was the name of the case?
Griggs, G-R-I-G-G-S versus Duke Power Company.
And the plaintiffs was Griggs, obviously.
And the company was being sued because?
They had a requirement for a high school diploma and then also a standardized test.
Right, but this test had disparate outcomes.
Right.
And so therefore, they were being sued.
Or was Griggs a minority?
A racial minority?
Yeah.
Was Griggs black?
Yeah, I believe so.
So he's arguing it's not fair, this test.
Yeah.
And they said, correct, it is not fair.
Exactly.
What was the ruling?
Do you know?
6-3, 9-0?
I believe it was either unanimous or there was one.
I believe it was unanimous or it was 8-1 or something.
Really?
Yeah.
This was a time when courts had gone crazy and really weren't paying attention to the law.
So, in effect, you seem to be arguing the origins of wokeness were Supreme Court-induced.
That's one kind, yes.
That's part of it.
But there's also...
Okay, we're going to get to the also.
It's fascinating what you've done here.
Yeah, the disparate impact.
The Origins of Woke, Richard Hanania, I'm interrupting you to sell your book.
Got you.
Reason to interrupt, sure.
Yes, the book is up at DennisPrager.com, The Origins of Water.
I am having more fun with Richard Hanania than an interviewer should have.
I admit.
How many times do people say that when they interview an author?
But you are a joy, my friend.
You are a live wire.
You think clearly.
This is an important book, and I feel both thrilled and ashamed that I did not know of this.
It was 1971?
Uh-huh.
Supreme Court ruling.
Unanimous.
You looked it up during the 9-0.
Yeah.
That disparity of result is the same as disparity of opportunity.
Same as straight, classic discrimination.
Yes.
I'm just curious for the fools who believe that.
There's no other word for anyone who believes that.
Would they apply that to sports?
You know, it's interesting because it's very selective, right?
So they go after paper and pencil tests for hiring.
What they don't go after is college degrees, right?
So some employers require college degrees.
You know, theoretically, white people are more likely to have college degrees than blacks and especially Hispanics, right?
And there's never been a civil rights problem with that, right?
And I think one thing that's, you know, one thing that's so pernicious about this is not only is it crazy, but it's also that everything really has a disparate impact.
And what this does is give it.
Give arbitrary power to the government to go after things they don't like.
They don't like tests.
They like college degrees.
And so, of course, nobody applies this consistently because it's an impossible standard.
You can't think of one thing that you might do for employment or hiring that doesn't have a disparate impact on some group.
Right.
And the most obvious example is sports.
Oh, yeah.
That's clear disparate impact.
Yeah, of course.
Somebody wins and somebody loses.
By definition, it's disparate.
Yeah, or like the positions, right?
Like the NFL cornerback.
I think they went 10 or 15 years with no white guy ever starting as a cornerback for the NFL. That sounds like it should be a civil rights lawsuit, but it never was.
I tell you, I just want to note a point that we made during the break that that was the Berger Court and that he was appointed by Nixon, a Republican.
And the Warren Court, which I think had, if not the beginning of wokeness, the beginning of the moral breakdown of the country in the New York State Regents' decision about prayer in school, it was a completely, completely non-denominational prayer.
It was as nothing a burger.
May God bless my teachers and my parents.
Basically, that was it.
And that was considered violation of the Constitution.
You know, by the way, Eisenhower, I believe, said that appointing Earl Warren to the court, who had been governor of California and a Republican, was the greatest mistake of his career.
Right.
You're familiar with that?
Yeah, I've heard that quote.
And why did Nixon appoint Berger?
You know, I did a little bit of digging sort of into the history of conservative movement and, you know, the sort of what the presidents were doing and sort of just the state of, you know, the legal profession.
And actually, it was hard to find conservative justices.
Nixon, in many cases, his heart was in the right place.
There was some senator, there was some, you know, his first few Supreme Court nominees, I forget the guy's name, but he got rejected by the Senate.
There was a lot of pushback.
They said he previously had supported segregation or something.
He was in the South.
And basically, like, this is not just staffing the judiciary.
Was it the guy, Carlswell, or something like that?
Yeah.
It wasn't exactly the same.
By the way, wasn't that, are you familiar?
I can't believe I remember this.
This is truly in the realm of the trivial, but it's hilarious.
There was someone, it might have been a senator, who was appointed to, nominated, I should say, by, I think it was Nixon, to be Supreme Court Justice.
Heruska was his name, if I'm not mistaken.
And the argument was that he is mediocre, but the mediocre should also be represented on the court.
Are you familiar with that?
Yeah, I remember this too, yeah.
See, so there's hope for me in sports.
The mediocre.
Pole vaulting, that's my future.
The book is The Origins of Woke.
So we'll go...
To the next arena after Supreme Court when we come back.
I think you should know you saved my life.
I don't think you realize.
I'm having more fun than one should have with the author of a book titled The Origins of Woke.
We should both be here crying and instead we're cracking each other up.
There's something wrong about this.
And the book, it's interesting that HarperCollins published it.
And I'm happy for you that they did.
Yeah, I mean, they've got some great guys there.
I mean, there's a guy named Eric Nelson.
Yes, that's right.
I have a book coming out with him after my Bible commentary.
Yeah, so he reached out to me.
He's terrific.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, so they've got some good people there.
They do.
That's entirely accurate.
The origins of woke.
Painfully, only painfully because I didn't realize.
1971 decision.
By the way, I was wrong on Hruska.
I was right about Carswell.
I was right about Hruska, but it wasn't Hruska who was nominated.
It was Carswell.
It was 1970. This is from the New York Times at the time, when Hruska died in 99. When Senator Hruska addressed the Senate in March 1970, speaking on Judge Carlswell's behalf, He asked why mediocrity should be disqualification for high office.
Even if he were mediocre, Mr. Hruska declared, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers.
They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?
Hey, it's true.
Again, imagine if we implied that to sports.
Yeah.
Yeah, so the guy, I mean, he's not particularly good at shortstop, but a lot of not particularly good shortstops.
They should be represented, too.
Yeah, I mean, Americans, a lot of overweight people.
I mean, why not a point guard?
They should be, yes, why not a point guard?
Exactly, that's right.
All right, so this was a terrible, terrible decision.
9-0 on the court that...
Disparate results or impact as they call it means discrimination.
What's the next origin of woke?
Okay, so that's where you get this idea, disparate impact.
It's not just about tests.
When you hear about schools, they say we can't discipline students because we're going to discipline too many black students, police.
So disparate impact is everything, just sort of making that clear.
There's also, now this is Johnson, Executive Order 11246 in 1964. What this does is it requires affirmative action for everyone who has a government contract.
And all of their subcontractors.
Today, this makes up about a third of the private sector workforce.
And basically, it doesn't do much at first, but during the Nixon administration, they really, really make it affirmative action as it's understood today.
So you're an employer.
You're Walmart.
You have a government contract.
You are required to count your...
To classify your employees by race, count how many white men, you know, black women, et cetera, you have in management in different positions.
And then if you don't meet, you know, certain targets and goals, you have to set targets.
You have to basically treat people differently on account of race.
This is like, you know, this is, you know, when I tell people this, their minds are blown.
I was telling Vivek Ramas...
Why are their minds blown?
Because people don't know that this is, you know, they just see corporations doing this woke stuff.
They see them saying, we're hiring not enough blacks, not enough women, not enough this and that.
They think it's just sort of something in the ideology that corporations are doing it.
But it was forced on them.
It was forced on them, yes.
And a lot of this stuff gets resistance.
And who was president?
That was Richard M. Nixon.
It was Johnson's executive order, but Nixon, where they really, really stepped up and they made it the program that it is today.
Johnson's executive order?
Is there anything a president cannot do via executive order?
In theory, there isn't, but in practice we've seen that there aren't really a lot of limits.
That's right.
That's exactly what we've seen.
Wow, those are two big ones.
Which, of course, the lesson of the second one, which you should have given first, only chronologically.
I'm not saying you should have, but I just want to...
People don't understand, we're going before 71. 71 is the terrible Supreme Court ruling on disparate impact.
64 is the order from...
65, actually.
65 is from the government.
Again, if you are a business that has government contracts, then you must have affirmative action.
And you have to force it on your subcontractors, too.
Yes, exactly.
And force it on your subcontractors.
Is there any big business without a government contract?
There are, but usually they want government contracts at some point in the future.
Yeah, of course, they're so lucrative.
Exactly.
So, in effect, they all just end up with...
Right, so this is why the founders wanted small government.
Yeah.
I don't know.
It's very rare that the government does good with all its power and its money.
Yeah, unquestionably true.
Well, as I point out, and I might tonight at ASU, is every genocide was made possible because of big government.
Nobody ever mentions that.
Nobody.
It's like they happen.
Yeah.
Out of nowhere, they just materialize.
A rabbit out of a hat.
Genocide.
The only genocide of the 20th century that was not big government was the Hutu massacre of the Tutsis.
And that's it.
That's the only one.
The other 99 million murdered was big government.
Anyway, so we have those two examples.
And go on.
We also have harassment law, right?
So under the Civil Rights Act at first, there's nothing about what you can say to your employees or what employees can say to one another.
In the 1980s, they start finding sexual harassment.
They start finding hostile work environment.
Out of this grows HR. HR, you can have a chart in the book where the number of people working in HR just goes through the roof after these civil rights laws are starting to be passed and regulations.
Wait, did hostile work environment?
Was that expressed via law?
Yeah.
It's illegal to have a hostile work environment.
Not under the original intent of the Civil Rights Act, but yes, the way it's been interpreted.
So we'll go to that when we return.
I'm telling you, I want to memorize your book.
It's got a lot of good charts.
Yes.
Okay.
The Origins of Woke.
Richard Hanania.
It's up at DennisPrager.com.
Get to me the sooner or later.
Author.
It's a total joy and learning experience.
The origins have woken.
I have so many questions for you, my friend.
Oh no, it's the final segment?
Richard, I blame you for that.
Oh.
Yes.
Too soon.
If you weren't that interesting and fun, it would have gone slower.
You're completely responsible for this.
I'm sorry, Dennis.
I'll try to be more boring.
All right, so let's do staccato.
What's the difference between woke and left?
I think the left encompasses a lot of things.
Like people will, you know, climate, views on economics.
You know, I've got a social science background.
I'm trying to explain one thing.
Like, why are they insane on race and sex, right?
Why are they crazy on speech?
And I think that's the difference.
So wokeness to me is the idea that disparities are caused by debiscrimination, it's the restrictions on speech, and it's the bureaucracy that's come together to enforce these ideas on the rest of us.
Okay, so then back to sex.
They got hostile work environment out of the...
Which laws?
This was the Civil Rights Act of 64. They defined discrimination as a hostile work environment, basically.
Just like they defined whatever they defined as disparate.
Exactly.
So, Barry...
Goldwater was probably right.
Yes, yes.
Goldwater was very prescient.
You look at his quote when he explained why he voted against the Civil Rights Act.
He said, I hate Jim Crow and I hate racial discrimination, but this will require a police state to enforce.
It will be neighbor spying on neighbor, businessman spying on businessman, groups jockeying for their small advantage, making claims of discrimination.
I mean, I encourage people.
I think I quoted some here in this.
I encourage people to look at that.
He was absolutely right.
It took me a lifetime to realize, Barry, Goldwater was right on the Civil Rights Act.
And by the way, I want to add, I may tell you something you don't know.
I certainly hope that's true.
And that is, he was the founder of the NAACP. In Arizona.
Did you know that?
I knew he supported civil rights, but no, I didn't know that.
Yes, isn't that something?
And this guy was called a racist.
Yeah, yeah.
It's really sad.
It's sad what they did.
I mean, there was a righteous cause in the 1950s and 1960s.
Yes, but it wasn't a righteous solution.
Yeah, they took it too far.
They went in the other direction, unfortunately.
Okay.
It's self-recommending, The Origins Evoke, Richard Hanania.
Yes, you can show it.
We're showing it for you.
You're a joy, my friend.
I'm delighted to have you.
It's been a pleasure.
Thank you very much.
See you tomorrow, everybody.
Don't forget, tell whoever you know, speaking at Arizona State University tonight.
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.